Women's History Review

ISSN: 0961-2025 (Print) 1747-583X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwhr20

Social work, the family and women's equality in

post-war Australia

Elaine Martin

To cite this article: Elaine Martin (2003) Social work, the family and women's equality in post-war
Australia, Women's History Review, 12:3, 445-468

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09612020300200368

Published online: 16 Feb 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4791

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwhr20
Women’s History Review, Volume 12, Number 3, 2003

Social Work, the Family and

Women’s Equality in Post-war Australia

The late ELAINE MARTIN

Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

ABSTRACT Social work as a profession supported the conservative norms of

the post-war era in Australia regarding family life and women’s roles, which
emphasised the family responsibilities of women rather than their ongoing
struggle for equality in public life and employment. The suggested reasons for
the conservatism of social work include its emergence as a female caring
profession, its struggle for credibility, the content of its training curriculum,
the socio-economic characteristics of its members, the kinds of family-related
employment in which they were engaged, and particularly the influence of the
successful male minority within its membership. Women social workers were
more loyal to the values and perceived interests of their profession than to the
equality of their sex.

The Post-war Ideal of the Family in Australia

The post-war era from the mid-1940s through to the mid-1960s in Australia
was a time of high consensus on conservative social values, which
emphasised the importance of the family and the domestic responsibilities of
women, rather than their participation in public life and in the workforce.
This social ideal was strongly promoted during the 1950s, though there
were undercurrents of change. By the mid-1960s, challenges to the ideal
were becoming more evident, and these exploded into public debate with the
women’s movement of the early 1970s.
The post-war social ideal was associated with the rebuilding of
Australian society after the social upheavals of wartime. During the war
years there was greatly increased employment of women, including married
women, in fields which had previously been male domains. They played an
important part in staffing munitions factories and other essential wartime
occupations. Wages for women relative to men rose overall, and in a few
cases actually matched those of men in the same jobs. At the same time,
women had to take on greater responsibilities for family authority and
decision-making while men were separated from their families.
However, as soon as war servicemen returned, they were given their
old jobs back or preference for available employment. Women were expected

445
Elaine Martin
to return home, to resume their pre-war roles, and in particular to produce
and care for the families which would provide the basis of a prosperous
expanding Australian society. The social ideal was the nuclear family of
father employed in the workforce, and house-proud mother engaged in
home duties, caring for her husband and two or more children in a ‘modern’
home. The institution of marriage, which had been threatened by the
separations and sexual freedoms of wartime, was supported by social
pressures, media images and a range of services. Government bodies and
many non-government service organisations in various ways offered practical
support or advice to families – from housing schemes and family welfare
services providing material aid to citizen’s advice services and Marriage
Guidance Councils which offered education programmes and counselling.
The powerful norm of ‘the family’ was accompanied by the
identification of deviant groups in society, which often became the concern
of social workers. Divorced persons and ‘deserted wives’ suffered social
stigma, and ‘unmarried mothers’ were regarded as a deviant group which
constituted a serious social problem, though they also provided babies for
thriving adoption services. The ‘working mother’, that is, a mother in the
paid workforce, was regarded with widespread suspicion, and family
problems from marriage breakdown to child ‘maladjustment’ and teenage
delinquency were attributed to mothers who neglected their family
responsibilities. A new deviant group was labelled, the ‘multi-problem family’
which did not live up to society’s standards of home life and responsible
behaviour.
These social stereotypes were particularly clearly expressed during the
time referred to as ‘the fifties’ [1], when marriage rates increased, ages at
marriage decreased for both men and women, and the highest birth rates of
the century were labelled the ‘baby boom’. The family ideal was supported
by a high level of male employment, a wage system based on a ‘family wage’
for men rather than equal pay for women, public campaigns by influential
churches [2], and the idealism which pervaded post-war reconstruction and
‘modernisation’. Murphy’s recent analysis of the 1950s [3] has examined the
domestic ideal of good citizenship promoted by the Menzies Commonwealth
Government and other powerful groups in Australian society. This ideal,
based on the fulfilment of complementary responsibilities by the male
breadwinner and the female homemaker, emphasised marriage and the
production of children, home ownership, and a return to the satisfactions of
domestic life after the public dislocations of the War. In support of such a
stable, family-based society, many social challenges occupied the attention of
governments, the public and relevant professions, including measures to
overcome an acute housing shortage, the massive influx and settlement of
migrants, and the need to improve the scope and standard of many
government social services.

446
 SOCIAL WORK AND WOMEN’S EQUALITY IN POST-WAR AUSTRALIA

Undercurrents of Change
Between the late 1940s and the mid-1960s there was little open debate
about the model of the ‘normal’ Australian family presented by both
‘experts’ and advertisers, or its implications for the slow movement towards
equality for women. It was a visiting English sociologist, rather than a local
commentator, who drew attention to the inequalities which applied to
Australian women and their very limited participation in public life by
1960.[4] But this era was also a time of undercurrents, of increasing
discrepancies between the ideals and the realities of family and social life.
These were detectable though seldom acknowledged during the 1950s, and
became increasingly visible during the 1960s.
One significant trend was the steady increase in the workforce
participation of women, particularly married women. Though the wartime
figures fell immediately after 1945, within a few years they were rising again
and continued to show a rapid increase through the 1950s and 1960s.[5]
This was not acknowledged in the Australian sociological writing of the
1950s, which described the dominant family ideal. In a major book on the
Australian family published in 1957 and read by many social workers, the
preference of women for full-time homemaking was emphasised.[6] By early
in the following decade, as it became evident that some mothers chose
employment rather than being impelled by dire financial necessity, ‘the
working mother’ was identified as a social problem, a matter of concern to
experts on child welfare, a subject of interest to sociologists and a matter of
public debate. The inducements of the paid workforce included the high
demand for labour in an expanding economy, and the rising standards of
domestic comfort available to those who could afford them, but mothers
were readily labelled as selfish even if their earnings were devoted to family
expenses.[7]
Another sign of change was the trend in divorce figures. The upsurge
of divorce figures immediately after the War caused general alarm, in
Australia as in other countries, and led to the establishment of Marriage
Guidance Councils in all states.[8] Though the divorce rate fell by the mid-
1950s, it remained much higher than the pre-war level, despite expanding
marriage guidance and education services, and rose again in the 1960s.[9]
The increased divorce rate was universally condemned as harmful to society,
and the ‘broken family’ was cited as an obvious cause of the increase in
‘juvenile delinquency’. There was also public concern about declining
morality, particularly in sexual behaviour, and the nonconformity of
rebellious ‘teenagers’.
Murphy has also identified an ‘undercurrent of discontent’ in a
growing questioning of the domestic ideal of good citizenship,
demonstrating that for both women and men some resistance to the
constraints of their prescribed roles was showing up in media sources by the

447
Elaine Martin
late 1950s and early 1960s.[10] He argued that this was a time of rapid
social change in ideas about sexuality, psychology, personality, and
individual fulfilment, and hence ambivalence about the social roles
prescribed for the model family. Research on the Marriage Guidance Council
of South Australia provides an example of growing awareness by the early
1960s of changes in marriage and morality, including increasing diversity of
marriage and family patterns, higher demand for divorce counselling, and
greater sexual freedom among young people.[11]
An important concurrent change was the improving education of girls
and young women.[12] The expansion of secondary and tertiary education in
Australia, and the increase in scholarships for universities and teachers’
colleges, gave new opportunities to able young women as well as men. With
these opportunities came aspirations for careers and life experiences beyond
the home. More dependable birth control in the 1960s meant that plans
could be made with greater confidence. These young women generally still
married young and produced children quickly; but what did not show up in
the census data were their dreams for their future lives.
Meanwhile, the campaigns of various women’s groups against the
continuing inequalities of women, particularly in employment, continued
through the democratic forms of protest which had been employed for
decades with slow results. Such organisations as the Australian Federation
of Women Voters and the Business and Professional Women’s Clubs
persevered with the struggle for equal pay, the abolition of discrimination
against women in employment (such as the ‘marriage bar’ against the
permanent employment of married women in the public services), and their
equal participation in many aspects of public life.[13]

The Views of the Social Work Profession

During this period from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s, the social work
profession in Australia was small and weak in influence. Its efforts to expand
its numbers and its claim to expertise in various fields of service were
hindered by both limited training facilities and a heavy loss of trained staff
from the workforce. Professional training for social work, established in
three states (Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia) only in the
decade before the War, was limited up to the mid-1960s to three university-
based courses, which had produced less than a thousand qualified staff by
1958.[14] The trained workforce was drastically depleted by the retirement
of women after marriage, as discussed below. The total number of trained
social workers in the workforce is not available, but the membership of the
Australian Association of Social Workers is an indicator, though an
underestimate since not all eligible people belonged. It was only about three
hundred in 1950, and rose to over seven hundred by 1965, with this

448
 SOCIAL WORK AND WOMEN’S EQUALITY IN POST-WAR AUSTRALIA

membership spread over six state branches. In 1955, the proportion of male
members reached 8%, by 1965, 12%.[15] Employment was spread over many
organisations and fields of service, in many of which functions were shared
with unqualified staff, without social work having established a strong claim
to any professional domain. Government services were slow to recruit
qualified staff.[16]
Where did the profession of social work stand in relation to issues
relating to women’s equality and their domestic and public roles? The
evidence examined so far suggests that the social work profession as a
whole, in terms of its corporate action and the great majority of its members,
maintained a conservative position rather than a commitment to change.
Most social workers accepted the social norm that family responsibilities
should be women’s priority and that any substantial employment outside the
home was generally incompatible with the good care of young children. This
article looks at some evidence for this conservatism and considers some
possible reasons for it.
The question can be explored here only in relation to the profession as
an entity, that is, its corporate action through such channels as the
Australian Association of Social Workers, its professional journal and
conferences, and the patterns of employment of its members as a whole. It is
important to recognise that some individual social workers of this era did
question the dominant social norms defining family life and the roles and
rights of women. Certainly, some challenged these in their own lives,
demonstrating the changing position of women and new patterns of family
and work. Some may have incorporated challenges to dominant norms in
their professional practice, though it is not easy to find this kind of
evidence.[17] And there were individual social workers who worked for
women’s rights on such matters as equal pay through women’s
organisations separate from their profession. An example was South
Australian Amy Wheaton, who was a leading figure in the Australian
Federation of Women Voters during the 1950s.[18]
The evidence used for this article is of three main kinds: the records of
the professional body, the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW),
in South Australia and Victoria and at its Federal Council level; the content
of the professional journal published by the AASW; and the findings of my
own detailed research on the employment patterns of South Australian
social work graduates.
The background to this article includes my personal experience and
that of my social work cohort, who trained in the 1950s, married and
produced children in the 1960s, and were confronted by the issues of work,
family and women’s rights throughout these and later decades. My
experience in the AASW at state (Victorian) level throughout this period and

449
Elaine Martin
at federal level in the 1960s, and research on related issues as identified in
the endnotes, have also contributed to this discussion.

The Evidence of Social Work

Conservatism in the Professional Journal
The professional journal published by the AASW, titled first Forum, then the
Australian Social Work Journal, then simply Australian Social Work, was
searched for the period from the mid-1940s to the end of the 1960s for
writing about either the family or about women’s issues.
The subjects covered in the professional journal during this period
were very broad indeed, reflecting the diversity of social issues which were
of concern to social workers and the extension of social work employment
into many new fields. There was also ongoing discussion of professional
education issues, and by the late 1960s also coverage of industrial matters.
Material on family matters related generally to families or children
perceived as having ‘problems’ rather than ‘normal’ families, which is not
surprising given the professional and employment concerns of many social
workers. There was little discussion of changes in family life, and there was
no explicit consideration of women’s rights or employment conditions.
Of particular interest were references to the mother–child relationship.
Many examples were found which either explicitly reiterated, sometimes in
emotionally charged language, the fundamental and lifelong importance of
the mother–child bond and maternal care [19] or slid from referring to
‘parents’ to ‘mother’ in discussions of children’s well-being.[20] No articles
were found which challenged the assumption that in Australian society
parenting was in fact mothering.[21]
The only article which explicitly focused on ‘Working Mothers and the
Family’, published in 1952, argued that just as single mothers and families
broken by divorce were called deviant, so should the family in which the
wife/mother went out to work. The array of problems thereby caused to
children and husband were dramatically illustrated by case examples.[22]
The following year, a discussion of ‘marital conflict’ stated that ‘the wife’s
employment outside the home is sometimes a disturbing factor’.[23] An
article in 1956 describing a day nursery defended its value as a
‘complement’ to the home not a substitute for it, and a preferable alternative
to institutional care for the children of single-parent families, not as a service
to mothers who chose to be employed when this was not essential.[24]
References to deserted wives and unmarried mothers represented their
deviance from the ‘normal’ family, even into the 1960s when relevant social
values were coming under challenge.[25] In the mid-1960s, a series of
articles focused on social work practice in foster care and adoption services,
in which social workers were increasingly influential.[26] Such interventions

450
 SOCIAL WORK AND WOMEN’S EQUALITY IN POST-WAR AUSTRALIA

might be seen as the creation or re-creation of as close as possible to

‘normal’ families.

Relevant Action or Non-action by

the Australian Association of Social Workers
An important area to explore is the action, or non-action, of the AASW at
federal and state levels on relevant issues. So far, South Australian Branch
records, some Victorian Branch records and some Federal Council records
have been studied.
There is certainly evidence of situations when the AASW did not
support the efforts of other organisations for women’s equality, and indeed,
had some difficulty in dealing with such issues. There were situations in at
least two states concerning key aspects of women’s participation in the
workforce, equal pay and discrimination in government employment, when
the professional body refrained from allying itself with efforts for reform.
The records reveal a conflict between support for women’s equality and
other opposing aims: firstly, that the professional body should avoid any
action which might be seen as political, secondly, that it should resist being
perceived as a ‘women’s organisation’, and thirdly, that it should work for
improved employment conditions for the profession as a whole.
The last was a particularly pertinent issue in relation to salary rates,
which were by comparison with other professional occupations very low, not
surprisingly for a predominantly female occupation, while also incorporating
a differential between men and women. The issue of equal pay proved to be
a contentious and complex one for the professional body. The factors taken
into account by social workers included broader social issues concerning the
impact of a change from a ‘family wage’ to equal pay, given the dependence
of most families on the earnings of the male breadwinner and the fear that
equal pay would threaten the level of male wages.[27] The dilemmas
experienced by members of the AASW are illustrated by the following
examples from the South Australian and Victorian branches.
On a number of occasions the South Australian Branch was asked to
support action by other organisations which were working throughout this
period for women’s equality, particularly on the issues of pay, employment
discrimination, jury duty, marriage law, and public appointments. Branch
records show that the professional body refused such requests, though it
took joint action with other bodies on many welfare issues. The grounds for
these refusals were that the Association must be non-political, that it was not
a women’s organisation, and that in the case of employment conditions its
efforts must be directed at improving the position of the whole profession.
On the last point there was an explicit policy statement in 1957, when state
branches were asked by Federal Council (which had in turn been asked by

451
Elaine Martin
the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations) to consider
the matter of equal pay. In South Australia, a subcommittee of two women
and one man reported back that there was ‘little value in pressing for equal
pay for the sexes in the local setting, because this might well lead to a
downgrading of male social workers. What was of primary importance was
the need for the raising of the status of social workers’. The Branch
Executive subsequently stated ‘that its primary concern with salary rates
should not be with equality of rates for the sexes, but rather with a general
effort to raise all salaries throughout the profession. It is unlikely that a
small group such as our Association would be able to alter the structure of
the present salary-fixing machinery’.[28]
Potential conflict between the interests of the profession as a whole
and those of its female majority were again evident during the years
1962-65, when the South Australian Branch was negotiating with the state
Public Service over social work salary scales and classification, handicapped
by the fact that social workers were only a tiny group within the Public
Service Association. Though the male members of the Branch were a small
minority (seven of forty-six members in 1962 [29], they included a number of
mature-aged experienced men (some ex-servicemen) who were keen to take
action on industrial matters. The relevant committee, called first
Professional Practices and Salaries then Salaries and Professional Practices,
included a majority of men. A general meeting of the Branch agreed that in
these negotiations the existing differences of salary between male and
female staff (which applied in other occupational groups as well as in social
work), as well as between qualified and unqualified staff, ‘should remain for
the time being ... The Public Service Commissioner is not likely to agree to
any disturbance with the statusquo [sic]’.[30] The again retitled Salaries and
Status Sub-Committee urged that the Association should emphasise ‘the
uniformity of Social Work as a whole, rather than pursuing sectional
claims’.[31]
Another situation illustrating the AASW’s position arose in the
Victorian Branch in 1964. This branch, larger than the South Australian
one, had been active in salary negotiations for some years, and in 1958 had
put a successful case to the state Public Service Board for increased salaries
for social workers employed by the state government. By the early 1960s,
the Branch was pressing for improved salaries for Commonwealth social
workers, specifically attempting to have their salaries linked with an award
for engineers (an overwhelmingly male profession). In late 1964, the
National Council of Women (NCW) asked for its support in pressing the
Victorian Public Service for the removal of the ‘marriage bar’, which affected
many women social workers. The request threw the Victorian Branch into
months of discussion and indecision. The first issue was whether the Branch
wanted to be associated with the NCW, which was obviously regarded as a

452
 SOCIAL WORK AND WOMEN’S EQUALITY IN POST-WAR AUSTRALIA

delicate matter. The Committee of Management pointed to a recently

adopted Federal AASW policy, which declared that the AASW should not be
affiliated with any organisation ‘limited by politics, religion or sex’. Though
the Branch had voted for continued affiliation with the NCW in 1962, it
decided that this ‘policy should be reviewed in the light of changing
circumstances, e.g. increasing numbers of men in the profession who find it
difficult to feel affiliated with this body’. Some months later, it was finally
decided that affiliation would not be renewed when a prominent member of
the AASW completed her term on the NCW Executive, without giving the
reason that the NCW was a body comprising women’s organisations.[32]
This protracted matter reflected the slowly changing gender composition of
the social work profession, the issue of its desired public image, and the
conflicts inherent therein.
On the issue of the ‘marriage bar’, action was also slow. Disagreement
among the Executive members is clear from the records, though their names
and gender details are missing. On the one hand, it was pointed out that
married women were not actually barred from employment, and that many
married women might prefer not to make careers or participate in
superannuation schemes. On the other hand, it was stated that a principle
was involved, and that women should have the opportunity of permanency,
promotion and superannuation. The matter was referred first to the Social
Action and Public Relations Committee, then several months later to the
newly appointed Salaries and Status Committee, which was at the time
involved in salary negotiations with the Public Service Board. The issue of
the marriage bar then appears to have lapsed though the issue had not been
resolved.[33]
In 1965, after a year of deliberations, the Victorian Branch did manage
to reach a policy in favour of equal pay. Following approaches by other
organisations, the NCW and the Victorian Medical Women’s Society, the
Committee of Management resolved that the Branch ‘should have a policy
on equal pay for women for work of equal value’, that this was a ‘matter of
concern for male as well as female members’, and that the decision would be
made by the majority of all members. A panel of speakers was arranged to
present cases for and against equal pay, with ‘an impartial outsider to
outline the economic implications’. Then a position paper was circulated to
members. Six months later, the Committee of Management resolved that ‘in
view of the fact that a policy on equal remuneration has been presented to
all members and no adverse comments received, that this be taken as
Association policy’.[34] The records do not suggest strong feeling among the
general membership on the principle of equal pay, which was apparently
investigated in terms of social consequences rather than women’s rights.
There is little evidence of overt conflict between female and male
members over these policy issues, though for some women at least they

453
Elaine Martin
presented a conflict of loyalties. There were differences of opinion among
women members, with some examples (cited later) of younger married
women rather than older single women challenging the status quo, but most
went along with the prevailing stance of the Branch. It could be argued that,
generally, women social workers did not wish to alienate their male
colleagues, or that social conditioning about male and female roles was
powerful in dispelling potential hostility. As noted elsewhere, there were
some influential and respected men in leadership positions in the
AASW. Most importantly, as I reiterate later, for most women members
loyalty to the profession and commitment to its cohesion and advancement
prevailed over concern for gender equality.[35]

Evidence from the Employment Patterns of Women Social Workers

In their own lives, women social workers demonstrated their commitment to
the primacy of family responsibilities for all women, including themselves,
not just their clients. Research on the careers of South Australian social
work graduates during this era, the results of which have been published
elsewhere [36], demonstrated very clearly that women social workers’
employment during this post-war era was secondary to their family
responsibilities, particularly the care of children. Women who graduated
during the 1940s and 1950s and subsequently married generally left the
workforce at the time of marriage or very soon afterwards. (Indeed, a
significant minority married so quickly that they did not enter the workforce
at all.) Though there was a severe shortage of trained social workers [37],
which presented serious problems for employer organisations, for needed
services trying to expand, and for the establishment of the social work
profession’s claim to fields of expertise, for the great majority of these
women their duty was clear. Their permanent or at least lengthy withdrawal
from the paid workforce was taken for granted. The two most common
career patterns for these women were permanent retirement from the paid
workforce to raise children, often combined with voluntary welfare activity
such as committee work, or a return to part-time work after a break of
between ten and twenty years. The unprotesting acceptance of this situation
by most of these women was related to a number of factors: not only the
prevailing social pressures towards full-time domesticity for women whose
husbands’ income permitted a financial choice (and most social workers of
this era married professional men), the slowness of employing agencies to
allow flexible work arrangements, particularly part-time employment, the
disincentives of discriminatory employment conditions for married women,
the lack of childcare services, but also – as discussed later – the
characteristics of social work itself.

454
 SOCIAL WORK AND WOMEN’S EQUALITY IN POST-WAR AUSTRALIA

In the employment histories of the social work graduates of the 1960s,

there were signs of change. They married less quickly after graduation,
worked for longer before having children, produced fewer children, and
returned somewhat more quickly to the workforce. There was evidence not
only of changing expectations concerning the relationship between
professional and family commitments, but also of greater personal conflict
over the reconciliation of these dual commitments. Nevertheless, the
personal care of their young children remained the priority for most of
them, and most withdrew form the workforce for substantial periods. It was
only late in this decade (and an important date is the removal of the
marriage bar in the South Australian Public Service in 1967) that a
significant minority of women attempted to maintain some career continuity,
through moving in and out of the workforce as they adapted to family
needs.
This South Australian evidence on the priority given by women social
workers of the post-war era to their own family responsibilities has been
supported by research in other Australian states, particularly the work of
Thea Brown in Victoria.[38]

Challenges and Signs of Change

Up to the end of the 1960s, there were only occasional dissonant voices
raised publicly within the social work profession about family and women’s
issues. The challenge of ‘radical social work’ which emerged during the late
1960s, articulated more by male social workers than female, was focused on
issues of social control and professional collusion with dominant social
power and class, rather than on gender issues.[39]
There were individual women who questioned the prevailing views of
the profession. At the national AASW conference of 1961, at which male
speakers were prominent, including John Lawrence, who strongly urged
greater recruitment of male social workers to promote the stability and
advancement of the profession, there was an outspoken female voice.
Cynthia Turner, a young married sociologist teaching in the University of
Melbourne social work course, declared that the issue of professional
stability should not be addressed simply by recruiting more men. The
profession should be concerned with providing ways of ensuring that women
social workers ‘can have a career on equal terms with men’; it should be
active on such questions as ‘equal pay, equal opportunity for the two sexes,
part-time work for married women, maternity leave and adequate
superannuation’. Citing statistics on the increasing participation of women
in the workforce, she appealed for ‘the support of the male members of our
profession in changing traditional attitudes on the employment of
women’.[40] At the 1965 conference, a paper by Connie Benn, a social work

455
Elaine Martin
practitioner with a family, provided another challenging voice. Entitled
‘Social Work – a vector of conformity’, it referred to attitudes to the family
and working mothers as one example among many of the ways in which
social work accepted a middle-class ideology and forced conformity on both
clients and practitioners.[41] These two individual women reflected the
growing number of women within the profession and the professional body
who by the 1960s saw their employment as a long-term commitment
alongside family responsibilities.
Other signs of change slowly became evident. In 1964, the Victorian
Branch of the AASW showed cautious interest in facilitating women
members’ return to paid employment when it arranged a refresher course
for those who had been out of the workforce, which included ‘discussion of
the personal and professional problems involved in combining professional
and family responsibilities’.[42] By 1969, the AASW Federal Council
considered various means of supporting a claim for equal pay for equal work
being presented by another occupational group, though active participation
in the case proved impracticable.[43] In the early 1970s there were signs of
unrest among at least a few women members of the AASW, who were
influenced by the new manifestations of the women’s movement and were
exploring its implications in their own lives. A significant landmark was the
formation of an enthusiastic Radical Women’s Group within the Victorian
Branch by Jane Nichols and others in early 1973. It began with a specific
focus on employment discrimination against women social workers, then
extended both its scope and its membership to address wider women’s
issues.[44] In the same year appeared the first article in Australian Social
Work to take up employment issues from a feminist stance. Jane Nichol’s
pioneering paper, ‘The Silent Majority’, pointed to the disadvantaged
position of women social workers in the workforce, and the impact of gender
stereotypes on social workers as both employees and practitioners. She
urged women to speak out on these issues, rather than remaining the ‘silent
majority’ of their profession, and to press for more accommodating
employment opportunities such as part-time work.[45]
Over the next few years, feminist ideas were introduced into the
Melbourne social work course by Cynthia Turner, Renate Howe and Fay
Marles, and similar developments began in some other states.[46] Despite
these challenges to social work conservatism, in 1977 Nichols observed that
‘in many respects social work in Australia has gone completely untouched’
by the Women’s Lib movement.[47]
In 1980, an article on non-sexist social work education was published
in Contemporary Social Work Education [48], in which Wendy Weeks
showed how texts commonly used in social work courses reinforced gender
stereotypes and offered an alternative approach. Like a number of women
who challenged social workers on these issues, Weeks had been influenced

456
 SOCIAL WORK AND WOMEN’S EQUALITY IN POST-WAR AUSTRALIA

by experience of and writing about the women’s movement in North

America. In 1981, the first Women and Welfare Conference took place in
South Australia.[49] In the early 1980s, Australian Social Work published
several articles analysing the greater career success of male social workers
compared with their female colleagues, and suggesting that social work was
divided into the ‘women’s work’ of caring and ‘men’s work’ of
administration and policy-making.[50] Finally, in 1986, an Australian book
was published which brought together a range of articles on the subject of
women in social work, entitled Gender Reclaimed: women in social
work.[51] It had been a slow process.

Why was Social Work Conservative on

Family and Women’s Issues during this Post-war Era?
The social work profession in Australia has been marked throughout its
history by recurring accusations that it is too socially conservative and too
reluctant to challenge the status quo. Debate within the profession about
the place within its mandate of what was often referred to as ‘social action’
has been a recurring and contentious issue. Some factors underlying the
conservatism of social work were similar to the ones influencing many
professions, particularly those implementing the policies and services of
government and other publicly supported agencies: their desire to increase
their credibility with employers, other professions and the public generally,
allied with a commitment to social improvement within existing structures
rather than radical social reform. Furthermore, social work in Australia was,
in comparison with the older professions, new, small, weak and of low
prestige. Participation in a reform movement to challenge family norms and
change the position of women did not sit comfortably with these features of
social work.[52]
Likewise, the socio-economic background of most members of the
social work profession, like that of various other professions, did not incline
them to social radicalism. Throughout the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, most
recruits came from families which could afford university fees, though an
important minority, mainly men, came through various scholarship and
subsidy schemes.[53] The majority of women graduates, in social work as in
other fields, subsequently married men who could afford to support them in
the homemaker role, or in poorly paid part-time work, without the need to
fight for equality in employment remuneration and opportunities.
A number of features specific to the social work profession were also
pertinent in reinforcing its conservative position in relation to the family,
and inhibiting its involvement in action to defend the rights of women. It
developed as an occupation considered particularly suitable to women since
it involved a caring role, and it has been argued that social work
employment was in its early decades an extension of both women’s domestic

457
Elaine Martin
sphere and of their earlier charitable activities.[54] A central concern of
social workers was the support of ‘the family’ as socially defined. Their
employment from the 1930s to the 1960s was mainly in agencies where
their roles were concerned with various aspects of family life: the home
circumstances of hospital patients; the family care of handicapped children;
the support of poor families through material aid and counselling; assistance
to the families of the defence forces then ex-service families; the supervision
and, if necessary, placement of neglected or abused children.[55] These roles
allied social work with the virtuous female stereotype of ‘God’s police’
described by Anne Summers, rather than with the social rebel.[56] A
relatively small number of male social workers worked in fields involving
coercive action, notably in the corrections, mental health and Aboriginal
services fields, but even there the family rather than the individual was the
concern of the social worker. It was not until the 1970s that ‘community
development’ became a prominent function of social workers.
The family as a central concern of social work was reinforced in the
curriculum of Australian social work training courses. During this era the
influence of psychoanalytic theory was strong, with its focus on
interpersonal relationships rather than social conditions.[57] The importance
of the mother–child relationship was given enormous emphasis in textbooks
used, most notably John Bowlby’s internationally famous book, Child Care
and the Growth of Love.[58] Such expert views, which placed on mothers
the responsibility for the lifelong well-being or otherwise of their children,
constituted a particularly heavy burden on women in a profession
intrinsically concerned with family welfare. Women social workers dealing in
their work with the social problems attributed to bad mothering may well
have feared endangering their own children’s emotional welfare – or their
professional credibility – by a commitment to personal careers rather than
fragmented employment tailored around family needs. Likewise, their
concerns about the welfare of other women’s children may have inhibited
them from fighting for women’s equality in the workplace.
Among social workers, particularly during the 1950s, there were also
strong links with the churches, which reinforced the conservative norms of
family life and women’s roles. During this era the churches of all
denominations, enjoying a period of growth and renewed vitality, strongly
allied themselves with the protection of family life through public campaigns
and such services as marriage education and counselling.[59] Along with
clergy and members of other professions, particularly medicine and
psychology, social workers were prominently involved in the marriage
guidance movement, influencing its values as well as its practice
methods.[60]
A feature of the social work profession which is of particular and
complex significance is its gender composition during this period.

458
 SOCIAL WORK AND WOMEN’S EQUALITY IN POST-WAR AUSTRALIA

Immediately post-war and through the 1950s, the membership of this new
and small profession was overwhelmingly female. Throughout the 1960s and
beyond, the large majority of social workers continued to be women, and the
stereotype of the social worker remained female. It could be argued that,
unlike women in the predominantly male professions such as medicine,
women social workers did not need to fight for their place, and were not
sensitised to issues of discrimination. It was also important that, because of
the employment policies and patterns described earlier, its active workforce
during this period was made up largely of relatively inexperienced though
well-educated young women who were unlikely to challenge dominant
norms or exercise great influence.
However, as indicated earlier, the men in the profession rose from a
tiny proportion immediately after the War to a significant minority by the
late 1950s and early 1960s. Early male members included ex-servicemen
who completed social work courses as mature age students under post-war
reconstruction grants, then benefited from preference given to ex-service
personnel. Some of these men quickly achieved success, especially in
government services, where they earned the respect of employers and
colleagues alike as they occupied senior positions not previously occupied
by social workers. There was agreement between the professional body and
employers that more male social workers were needed to provide a more
stable professional workforce, particularly in expanding government
services. The shortage of qualified staff, particularly experienced people for
senior positions, was met with a call for more men rather than an effort to
improve women’s employment opportunities. The case for more male
recruits was voiced strongly by John Lawrence, both personally within the
profession and in his published history of social work in Australia.[61] The
percentage of male members of the AASW reached 10% in 1960, rose slowly
to 13% in 1970, and then more rapidly to 17% in 1974.[62] Improved
government employment opportunities in the 1970s encouraged more male
recruits, with men constituting a fifth of graduates in South Australia (the
highest state figure) over this decade.[63]
The minority of men were an influential force. Some took on
leadership roles in the professional association (for example, Mac Harris in
South Australia, Elery Hamilton-Smith and John Lawrence on Federal
Council) and in social work education (Ray Brown in South Australia, Len
Tierney in Victoria, John Lawrence in New South Wales). Those who
successfully held senior positions, particularly in expanding government
services in such fields as child welfare, corrections and mental health,
undoubtedly increased the visibility and credibility of the profession.
Within the Association, details of office-bearers and committee
membership show that in relation to their numbers, male members occupied
more positions of responsibility, and were especially active in the committees

459
Elaine Martin
set up at Federal and state levels in the mid-1960s to pursue industrial
issues.[64] Presumably, many were motivated by trying to support families
on the low salaries which had applied in a predominantly female profession,
and some were experienced in unions such as the Public Service
Association. The relative lack of interest of women members in salaries and
conditions was remarked upon at the time.[65]
The size of the male minority was important. It was not large enough
for there to be any question of separate associations for male and female
social workers, as happened earlier, though temporarily, in the teaching
profession in South Australia.[66] It was not small enough to be ignored,
which appears to have been the case in the nursing profession during this
period. Moreover, it included able and respected men whose contribution to
the profession was valued by female colleagues. The male minority in social
work was of a size and influence which made it unlikely that the profession
as a whole would generate a critical position or take action on issues
specifically affecting its women members.
Further research on social work in other states may reveal more non-
conforming voices or progressive action on these issues. In the meantime,
the evidence suggests that the social work profession, despite its largely
female composition, was slow to question the post-war ideal of the family
and to support equality for women, particularly in the workplace. Various
inhibiting factors have been identified: the profession’s caring and reformist
rather than radical tradition, its efforts to establish credibility with
employers and extend its employment opportunities, the socio-economic
background of its members, the norm of the family promulgated in the
social work curriculum and the central concern of most social work jobs
with family problems. Of particular significance was the prominent and
influential role of the minority of male social workers, who were generally
perceived as strengthening the position of a small aspiring profession. In
this situation, a crucial factor was the greater loyalty of women social
workers to the values and interests of their profession rather than to the
equal rights of their sex.

Notes
[1] A particularly useful reference on this period is Australian Historical
Studies (1997), 27/28, 109 (Melbourne: University of Melbourne), entitled
The Forgotten Fifties: aspects of Australian society and culture in the
1950s. On implications for women, see Anne Summers (1975) Damned
Whores and God’s Police (Melbourne: Penguin), especially chapter 13,
Suburban Neurotics?; Patricia Grimshaw, Marilyn Lake, Ann McGrath &
Marian Quartly (1994) Creating a Nation (Melbourne: McPhee Gribble),
especially chapter 11, Freedom, Fear and the Family; James Walter (2001)
Designing Families and Solid Citizens: the dialectic of modernity and the

460
 SOCIAL WORK AND WOMEN’S EQUALITY IN POST-WAR AUSTRALIA

Matrimonial Causes Bill, 1959, Australian Historical Studies, 116,

pp. 40-56.
[2] Churches of all major denominations took the role of ‘protector of family life
and moral guardian of youth’. David Hilliard (1994) God in the Suburbs: the
religious culture of Australian cities in the 1950s, Australian Historical
Studies, 97, pp. 399-419.
[3] John Murphy (2000) Imagining the Fifties: private sentiment and political
culture in Menzies’ Australia (Sydney: UNSW Press/Pluto Press). See
p. 218 for a useful discussion of definitions of the ‘fifties’.
[4] Norman MacKenzie (1962) Women in Australia: a report to the Social
Science Research Council of Australia (Melbourne: Cheshire).
[5] The percentage of all married women in the workforce rose from 8% in 1947
to over 12% in 1954, over 17% in 1961 and nearly 27% in 1966. The figures
for women in the 25-40 age group, i.e. those likely to have young children,
were slightly higher rather than lower than the total figures. S. Encel,
M. MacKenzie & M. Tebbutt (1974) Women and Society: an Australian
study, pp. 74-75 (Melbourne: Cheshire).
[6] A.P. Elkin (Ed.) (1957) Marriage and the Family in Australia (Sydney:
Angus & Robertson). For example, the male sociologist, Morven Brown, who
taught in a social work course, wrote, ‘Women have shown distinct
reluctance to exchange their role as housewives for that of economic
earners ... Whenever they can, Australian women mostly revert happily to
their favoured roles of full-time wives and mothers’. M.S. Brown, Changing
Functions of the Australian Family, in Elkin, Marriage and the Family in
Australia, p. 113. Female sociologist Jean Martin agreed that employed
married women regarded their work as secondary to family interests. Jean
Martin, Marriage, the Family and Class, in Elkin, Marriage and the Family
in Australia, p. 33.
[7] This view was apparent in several of the articles published in A. Stoller (Ed.)
(1962) The Family Today, published for the Victorian Family Council
(Melbourne: Cheshire). For example, McCloskey, a male child health officer,
stated, ‘In countless cases mothers prefer to go out to work instead of home-
making and are not present when their children return from school. When
children are allowed to “run loose” after school it is not hard to imagine the
results which are liable to follow’. Bertram P. McCloskey, The Family Today
and the Health of the School Child, in Stoller, The Family Today, p. 122.
Likewise, the ‘selfish, and often materialistic attitude of some mothers’ was
berated by Doris Officer, a woman medical officer associated with the Free
Kindergarten Union and the Victorian Baby Health Centres Association.
Doris Officer, The Family and Maternal Health, in Stoller, The Family
Today, p. 108. However, the book’s editor, Stoller, was much more non-
judgemental in his views and urged further research on the impact of
mothers’ employment. Alan Stoller, Conclusion, in Stoller, The Family
Today, p. 170.

461
Elaine Martin
[8] On the development of Marriage Guidance Councils, see Elaine Martin
(1998) Changing Relationships: Marriage Guidance Council to
Relationships Australia – a South Australian history (Adelaide:
Relationships Australia).
[9] The divorce rate in Australia, per thousand marriages, was 42.9 in 1936,
91.0 in 1946, 94.8 in 1951, 90.4 in 1956, 87.5 in 1961, and 91.2 in 1965.
L. Day, Divorce, in A.F. Davies & S. Encel (Eds) (1970) Australian Society,
2nd edn, p. 295 (Melbourne: Cheshire).
[10] Murphy, Imagining the Fifties, especially chapter 14, The Housewife and the
Man in the Grey Flannel Suit. See also Walter, ‘Designing Families and
Solid Citizens’, for a discussion of how the complexity of public debate
about uniform national divorce legislation in the Matrimonial Causes Bill of
1959 reflected conflicting and changing perceptions and values.
[11] Elaine Martin, Changing Relationships, pp. 55-55.
[12] Lesley Johnson (1993) The Modern Girl: childhood and growing up
(Sydney: Allen & Unwin).
[13] Martin & Nancy Bates (1996) The South Australian League of Women
Voters and the Post-war Women’s Movement, Journal of the Historical
Society of South Australia, 24, pp. 5-27; Elaine Martin, ‘Polite Lobbying’:
the Australian Federation of Women Voters and its Allies in the Australian
Post-war Women’s Movement, in Joy Dalmousi & Katherine Ellinghaus
(1999) Citizenship, Women and Social Justice: international historical
perspectives, pp. 204-216 (Melbourne: University of Melbourne).
[14] R.J. Lawrence (1965) Professional Social Work in Australia, p. 218
(Canberra: Australian National University). There were also two almoner
training courses, but almost all who undertook these courses did so in
addition to a generic social work programme.
[15] These figures are based on data given in Lawrence, Professional Social
Work in Australia, p. 177, and R. John Lawrence, Introduction: Australian
social work: in historical, international and social welfare context, in Philip
J. Boas & Jim Crawley (1976) Social Work in Australia: responses to a
changing context, p. 27 (Melbourne: Australia International Press in
association with the Australian Association of Social Workers).
[16] Elaine Martin (1996) Gender, Demand and Domain: the social work
profession in South Australia 1935-1980, PhD thesis, University of
Melbourne 1991, in 1996 published by the Australian Association of Social
Workers. A classic United Kingdom reference used in this work was
R.G. Walton (1975) Women in Social Work (London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul).
[17] Useful discussions with Jane Miller (prev. Nichol), Lynette Hawkins, Wendy
Weeks and others suggest that fruitful research on early feminist-influenced
practice could be pursued through the recollections of relevant practitioners
of the 1960s.
[18] Martin, ‘“Polite Lobbying”’.

462
 SOCIAL WORK AND WOMEN’S EQUALITY IN POST-WAR AUSTRALIA

[19] For example, Dr Jeannie Stirrat (1952) Parental Love and Emotional Health,
Forum, VI(4), pp. 153-166. This article described (p. 154) how the ‘perfect
pattern of experience’ for a child, from which deviations were ‘the roots of
all disturbance’, depended on the mother being ‘happy to be a woman, a
wife, a mother and to play the relatively passive role’. Other papers in the
same issue of this journal of the Australian Association of Social Workers
reiterated the key role of the mother.
[20] For example, Kathleen Dawe (1953) Casework with Children, Forum, VI(4),
pp. 58-71; Georgia Travis (1954) On Relationship, Forum, VII(1), pp. 20-31.
[21] There was one article which discussed cultural differences, referring to cross-
cultural differences in the significance of ‘maternal neglect’. Jean Martin
(1956) Anthropology and Social Work, Forum, IX(2), pp. 21-22.
[22] Dorothy Davis (1952) Working Mothers and the Family, Forum, VI(3),
pp. 22-28.
[23] Alison Player (1952) Marital Conflict, Forum, VI(4), p. 22-40. It was
suggested (p. 28) that the counsellor should explore why the wife wanted to
work, which might be because she ‘cannot accept her feminine role of wife
and mother’, and that ‘the outcome of counselling might be that the wife
decided ‘to relinquish work in order to give the time and devotion to her
home and family which they want’.
[24] E. Sharpe (1956) Social Work with the Day Nursery Service in Victoria,
Forum, IX(2), pp. 15-17.
[25] For example, the case for ‘early adoption’, rather than either care by the
natural (unmarried) mother or institutional care was stated in M. Kelley
(1953) Child Care in Victoria, Forum, VI(5), p. 23. It is interesting to note
that as late as 1965, a paper given at the AASW national conference
explained the causes of unmarried pregnancies in terms of various kinds of
‘damaged personalities’, and particularly problems in mother–daughter
relationships. M. Lewis (1965) Unmarried Mothers, in AASW, People are
Different: social work and social norms. Ninth National Conference
Proceedings, pp. 103-114. At the same conference, another more radical
speaker noted that ‘in the fields of adolescent and marriage counselling we
know that premarital intercourse is becoming the rule and not the exception
among our young people’: C. Benn (1965) Social Work – a vector of
conformity, People are Different, p. 88.
[26] There was a special issue on the topic ‘Aspects of Adoption Practice’ in
Australian Journal of Social Work, 20(1) (1967).
[27] Marilyn Lake (1999) Getting Equal: the history of Australian feminism
(Sydney: Allen & Unwin), especially chapter 8, ‘No Discrimination on the
Grounds of Sex or Race’.
[28] Australian Association of Social Workers, South Australian Branch, Minutes
of Committee of Management (AASW-SA, Minutes), 17 July 1957, 7 August
1957.
[29] AASW-SA, Annual Report, 1962.

463
Elaine Martin
[30] AASW-SA, Minutes of general meeting, 23 June 1964.
[31] AASW-SA, Minutes, 14 July 1964.
[32] Australian Association of Social Workers, Victorian Branch, Minutes of
Committee of Management (AASW-Vic, Minutes), 7 October 1964 to 1
September 1965.
[33] AASW-Vic, Minutes, 3 March 1965 to 1 September 1965.
[34] AASW-Vic, Minutes, 5 May 1965 to 1 December 1965.
[35] This statement reflects discussion with a number of fellow participants in the
processes described; in particular I acknowledge the helpful comments of
Nancy Bates.
[36] Martin, ‘Gender, Demand and Domain’; Elaine Wilson Martin (1997)
Women’s Work and Family Patterns in a Caring Profession, in Dennis
Mortimer, Priscilla Leece & Richard Morris, Readings in Contemporary
Employment Relations (Sydney: Harcourt Brace). Details of other articles
reporting this research are included in these two references.
[37] Martin, ‘Gender, Demand and Domain’; Elaine Martin (1985) Scarcity in a
New Profession; social work in South Australia 1936-1950, Australian
Social Work, 38, pp. 25-34.
[38] Of particular interest is the research carried out on social work graduates in
Victoria by Thea Brown and others. Thea Brown (1987) Women Social
Workers: their careers yesterday, today and tomorrow, paper delivered at
the Twentieth Biennial Conference of the Australian Association of Social
Workers, University of Western Australia, Perth; Thea Brown & Cynthia
Turner (1985) Women, Men and Their Careers: gender domains in the
female profession of social work, paper presented to the Women’s Studies
Section of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement
of Science, Monash University, Victoria.
[39] This is illustrated in Harold Throssell (Ed.) (1975) Social Work: radical
essays (Brisbane: University of Queensland Press). The index of this book,
p. xi, which purports to reflect on the radical thinking of the past decade,
does not include any article on women’s issues or any index entry for
‘women’ or ‘gender’; the entry for ‘sex’ refers to sexuality not gender.
[40] Australian Association of Social Workers (1961) The Association and Social
Work: Proceedings of Seventh National Conference, Sydney, pp. 42-43.
[41] Benn, ‘Social Work – a vector of conformity’.
[42] A. Williams (1964) Refresher Course – a Melbourne experiment, Australian
Journal of Social Work, 17(3), p. 54.
[43] The obstacles included cost and differences of opinion. AASW (1969)
Federal Newsletter, no. 11, April, Federal Council Report, p. 8, and
Industrial Negotiation in Australia, pp. 11-12; AASW (1969) Federal
Newsletter, no. 12, July, Industrial Matters, p. 10; AASW (1969) Federal
Newsletter, no. 13, October, Industrial Situation of Social Workers in
Australia, pp. 15-17.

464
 SOCIAL WORK AND WOMEN’S EQUALITY IN POST-WAR AUSTRALIA

[44] AASW, Victorian Branch, Newsletter, 1973. In the April newsletter, p. 8, a

notice invited contact with Jane Nichols by those interested in setting up an
Association subcommittee ‘to examine the roles of women in social work, to
note the discrimination which exists in areas of employment such as the
State and Commonwealth Public Service, and to document the lack of
occupational and promotional opportunities for women in part-time work’.
The following month’s newsletter, May, p. 18, reported ‘the amazing
response to the item in the last Newsletter about plans to form a group
interested in the status of women in social work, with the particular aim of
preparing motions for the annual conference in August, a meeting will be
held’. The group met fortnightly, including interested students and
untrained welfare staff, to consider not only discrimination against women
social workers but also discrimination against women clients by social
workers. Newsletter, June, p. 9. However, the position of women social
workers was not specified in the Victorian Branch’s priorities for the
following year, set after its annual conference. AASW, Federal Newsletter,
34, November 1974, p. 29. Many other issues occupied the Victorian Branch
at this time, including debate about eligibility for membership.
[45] Jane Nichols (1973) The Silent Majority, Australian Journal of Social Work,
26, 4, pp. 35-43.
[46] Cynthia Turner (1984) Women’s Place in the Social Work Curriculum – past
experience and future possibilities, presented at the Women in Welfare
Education Conference, sponsored by the Australian Association for Social
Work Education, Melbourne.
[47] Jane Nichols (1977) Social Work Education and Women’s Lib ... a Dead
Issue?, Contemporary Social Work Education, 1(2), pp. 52-54.
[48] Wendy Weeks (1980) Toward Non-sexist Social Work Education: a
personal/professional point of view, Contemporary Social Work Education,
3(2), pp. 145-155. Weeks had returned from Canada with experience of the
impact of the women’s movement on social work there.
[49] Department for Community Welfare – South Australia (1981) Report of the
First Women and Welfare Conference, Adelaide. The conference
coordinator was Mary Corich, Advisor on Women and Welfare to the
Department for Community Welfare, which sponsored the conference.
[50] Audrey Bolger (1981) Status in a Female Profession: women social workers
in Perth, Australian Social Work, 34(2), pp. 3-10; Judith Healy (1982) The
Status of Women in the Australian Welfare Industry, Australian Social
Work, 35(3), pp. 19-26; Helen Kiel (1983) Women in Social Work: caretakers
or policy makers? Australian Social Work, 36(2), pp. 3-14.
[51] Helen Marchant & Betsy Wearing (1986) Gender Reclaimed: women in
social work (Sydney: Hale & Ironmonger).
[52] To cite the retrospective comment of a social worker active throughout this
era: ‘To be considered radical would have been counter-productive and have
isolated us from the support and acceptance of other [conservative]
professions ... we would have seen it as negating the enormous and

465
Elaine Martin
dedicated effort invested by the trail blazers whom we all respected’. Nancy
Bates, personal written communication, 2000.
[53] For example, on the background of South Australian recruits to social work
training, see Martin, ‘Gender, Demand and Domain’.
[54] For example, Laurie O’Brien & Cynthia Turner (1979) Establishing Medical
Social Work in Victoria (Melbourne: University of Melbourne); on Britain,
see R.G. Walton (1975) Women in Social Work (London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul).
[55] For details of social workers’ employment in South Australia, see Elaine
Martin (1986) Social Work and Services, 1935-1965, in Brian Dickey (Ed.),
Rations, Residence, Resources: a history of social welfare in South
Australia since 1836 (Adelaide: Wakefield Press), pp. 226-268.
[56] Summers, Damned Whores and God’s Police.
[57] This emphasis varied somewhat among the states; however, it is
demonstrated in the Australian social work text (of which there were few),
T. Brennan & N.A. Parker (1966) The Foundations of Social Casework
(Sydney: Ian Novak); see for example, p. 68.
[58] John Bowlby (1953) Child Care and the Growth of Love (London: Pelican).
This book summarised a report prepared under the auspices of the World
Health Organisation, which enhanced its authority.
[59] David Hilliard (1997) Church, Family and Sexuality in Australia in the
1950s, The Forgotten Fifties, pp. 133-146.
[60] Martin, Changing Relationships.
[61] Lawrence, Professional Social Work in Australia.
[62] Lawrence, Australian Social Work, in Boas & Crawley, Social Work in
Australia, p. 27.
[63] In South Australia, the proportion of men among those completing the
successive available social work courses was 5% from 1938 to 1941, 12%
from 1942 to 1960, and 19% from 1959 to 1968. Martin, ‘Gender, Demand
and Domain’, p. 244. For figures for Australia as a whole, which did not
reach as high a proportion of men during the 1960s, see Lawrence,
Australian Social Work, in Boas & Crawley, Social Work in Australia, p. 27.
[64] Martin, ‘Gender, Demand and Domain’, p. 186; AASW, Federal Newsletter,
1964-67, passim.
[65] G.A. Rennison (1963) Review of N. MacKenzie, Women in Australia,
Australian Journal of Social Work, 16(2), p. 50.
[66] B.K. Hyams (1974) The Battle of the Sexes in Teachers’ Organisations in
South Australia, 1937-1950, Journal of the Australian and New Zealand
History of Education Society, 3(2), pp. 36-45. Separate organisations of
women and men teachers existed between 1937 and 1950 in South
Australia.

466
 SOCIAL WORK AND WOMEN’S EQUALITY IN POST-WAR AUSTRALIA

ELAINE MARTIN was, until her recent death an Honorary Research Fellow
in the Department of History, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide,
South Australia 5001, Australia. Prior to that she was a Senior Lecturer in
Social Administration and Social Work in that university. Her historical
research has been in the areas of South Australian welfare history,
particularly the development of the social work profession and the evolution
of specific services, with an interest also in the history of women’s
organisations. Recent publications include Changing Relationships:
Marriage Guidance Council to Relationships Australia – a South
Australian history (Relationships Australia, Adelaide, 1998), and jointly with
Brian Dickey, Building Community: a history of the Port Adelaide Central
Mission (The Port Adelaide Wesley Centre, Adelaide, 1999).

Editor’s Note
In mid December 2002 I received a letter from Ian Schomburgk with the sad
news that his wife, Elaine Martin, had passed away. He explained that Elaine
had been diagnosed with fairly advanced ovarian cancer a few days after her
retirement in July 2000 and ‘did what she could finishing off that paper and
I am sure is pleased to know that it has been accepted’. She died on 26 April
2002.
Ian enclosed in his letter to me a copy of an obituary, written by David
Hilliard, and published in the Adelaide Advertiser, Saturday, 1 June 2002.
His notice, titled ‘Trailblazing teacher with welfare of students at heart’,
offers details about Elaine’s life and I quote liberally from this source here.
Elaine was born on 4 July 1937 in Melbourne to parents who were active in
the Presbyterian Church. At the age of 16, she entered the University of
Melbourne for a five-year combined honours and social work course,
graduating with first-class honours in history in 1958 and a Diploma of
Social Studies the following year. Having been awarded a scholarship by the
Services Canteen Trust, she then came to England to study under Professor
Richard Titmuss for a masters’ degree in sociology at the London School of
Economics. In 1961, in London, she married John Martin whom she had met
in the Student Christian Movement at the University of Melbourne. On
returning to Melbourne, she held various posts in social work while raising a
family of three children. In 1973, the family then moved to Adelaide where
Elaine began part-time teaching at Flinders University. Appointed Lecturer
in Social Administration in 1976, she rose through the ranks to Senior
Lecturer in 1979, and then Dean of the School of Social Sciences in 1987.

467
Elaine Martin
David Hilliard comments, ‘In that period, there were few women academics
in senior positions and she was only the second woman to head a school at
Flinders University’.
In 1989, Elaine was made Acting Pro-Vice Chancellor at Flinders. But,
according to Hilliard, she was ‘less happy in the upper reaches of academic
administration, preferring to resume full-time teaching’. Nevertheless, while
holding this post, Elaine completed her PhD on the social work profession
in Southern Australia from 1935 to 1980, the award being made by the
University of Melbourne in 1991.
Elaine’s enthusiasm for hard work and engagement with life did not
stop there since she was also a valued member of many boards, advisory
committees and reviews, both state and national. From 1979 to 1983 she
chaired the state’s Community Welfare Grants Advisory Committee. She was
also a supporter of the Alumni Association, especially as a donor to the
Jessie Cooper Study Grants for Mature Entry Women. A committed
Christian, she was active in the Uniting Church and during the 1990s a
member of the board of the Adelaide Central Mission.
Elaine is survived by the three children of her first marriage and by
her second husband, Ian, whom she married in 1998. To all of Elaine’s
immediate family and her many friends we send our deepest sympathy.

June Purvis

468